Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:14:14 -0800 (PST) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: joelh@gnu.org Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD on i386 memory model Message-ID: <199811201714.JAA18156@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <86hfvuia7y.fsf@detlev.UUCP> References: <199811181842.KAA06180@apollo.backplane.com> <3.0.5.32.19981120103442.0099f460@mail.scancall.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <86hfvuia7y.fsf@detlev.UUCP>,
Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> wrote:
> >>> On the 386 and 486, call gates are faster. On the pentium,
> >>> pentium-PRO, and pentium-II, interrupts are faster.
> > With regards to this, might it not be a good idea to use a different
> > syscall convention, based on whether you've got the 486/384 options in your
> > kernel or not?
>
> It would require changing libc to read the kernel config file. Do we
> really want to mess with this?
Of course we don't. Nobody who cares about speed is going to use a 486.
John
--
John Polstra jdp@polstra.com
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
-- H. L. Mencken
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811201714.JAA18156>